John Masefield House - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Improvements had been made and evidence showed people were safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments and management plans were in place and reviewed regularly. Equipment was used appropriately to support people and was checked to ensure it was safe to use. People were positive of the improvements the provider had made to ensure equipment was available and maintained. People showed us some of the changes which included ceiling hoists and wheelchairs. Staff told us they had better systems to guide them when supporting people during transitions. There were enough staff to support with these processes. There were systems and processes for staff to follow and incidents and accidents were analysed. Improvements were made in response to learning from incidents. There were enough staff to support people’s needs and the service was fully recruited. Medicines were managed safely. We were assured that the provider had effective systems and processes in place to prevent and control infections. They ensured infection outbreaks were effectively prevented or managed.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they felt safe living at John Masefield House. They could raise safety concerns and were confident they would be listened too. One person said, “Could talk to [Registered Manager]. They would listen to me if I was worried. I’ve never complained though.”

Staff told us improvements had been made and there were better systems used to make those improvements. Information and learning was shared through daily meetings as well as staff meetings. One member of staff said, “The improvement in the home is that the home is cleaner. Health and safety of the residents and employees are being heard more and settled, policies are being implemented and we have a say in meetings.”

The provider had clear processes which allowed learning and a continuous process. This included learning from errors, accidents and incidents as well as near misses. Records showed staff championed reporting and recording of accidents and incidents.

People told us they could now easily access other services with staff who knew their needs available to support them with visits. One person commented, “I go to hospital every 3 to 6months so they arrange transport from here and a carer comes with me.” The provider had also introduced use of independent advocates for people who needed them. This had resulted in improved understanding of people’s individual needs and better access to care as well as improved outcomes.

Staff told us they had better systems to guide them when supporting people during transitions. Staff used 'passports' to capture people's needs and ensured this was shared with other professionals. There were enough staff to support with these processes.

Healthcare professionals who often worked with the service were positive about the improvements made which enabled people to access care and support when they needed it. They acknowledged how changes in staffing levels and people's care plans had resulted in effective information sharing and better care for people.

The provider had made improvements and introduced better streamlined processes which enabled continuity of care. People's care plans were more person centred and had all the information needed when accessing other services.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. They said, “Safe because I get on with the staff and they look after me” and “Yes, safe because they [staff] have been nice to me and my [relative] isn’t far away, and I see my wife.” The availability of enough staff to meet people's needs was acknowledged by both people and their relatives. One relative commented, "Yes, the home is safe as their [person] falls risk is minimised by the provision of a 1:1."

Staff were trained in safeguarding and were able to name different types of abuse and identify the common signs of abuse. Staff demonstrated that they knew who to report any potential safeguarding to and where to escalate this if necessary. One member of staff commented, “I report to the manager who is the safeguarding champion or safeguarding team.”

We saw people engaged with staff in a relaxed manner and they looked comfortable in their presence. There was a relaxed and calm atmosphere which enabled staff to focus on people’s individual needs.

The provider had a detailed safeguarding policy and procedure for staff to follow. This noted current information on what to do if anyone suspected a person was at risk of harm.

People told us they were supported to manage their risks by knowledgeable staff. There was more focus on positive risk taking which enabled people to do what was important to them. One person said, “I go out on laps around the garden, go to Didcot and Abingdon shopping to get things I need.”

Staff told us a lot of work had gone in and risks to people’s well-being were being managed well. Risk assessments and management plans were person centred and gave staff enough guidance to support people effectively. One member of staff told us, “The last 6 months have been a significant milestone. We have had to start everything from scratch. The care plans were not usable and a lot of work went into that.”

We saw people had risk assessments and management plans which included areas such as falls, skin integrity and choking. Where people had been assessed as requiring regular checks, records seen indicated that these had been completed and we saw staff completing them at the point of care. We saw people encouraged people to complete tasks that they still could whilst they were at hand to support when needed.

There was good oversight in the recording and monitoring of the risks people faced in their lives. This included monitoring falls and pressure ulcer risks. Staff considered patterns and trends in order to minimize the risks to people and inform staff how to support people safely. Staff met with healthcare professionals on a regular basis to share best practice, review people’s presenting risks and take action to ensure people were cared for appropriately.

People were positive of the improvements the provider had made to ensure equipment was available and maintained. People showed us some of the changes which included ceiling hoists and wheelchairs which had resulted in better care. The décor had been updated and allowed easier navigation around the home. There was easy access to the vast beautiful grounds which surrounded the home. People told us they enjoyed exploring the gardens.

Staff told us they were positive about the changes which allowed provision of safer care. The improvement in the environment allowed people to be more independent and staff found it it easier to support them with this. The availability of serviced equipment ensured care could be provided safely.

We saw improvements had been made and equipment had been repaired and serviced. We saw staff used equipment safely. Staff often completed refresher equipment use training at the management team checked their practices. We saw people mobilising safely around the home with minimal supervision.

The provider had made changes and ensured equipment and facilities supported delivery of safe care. There were systems in place to quality assure staff practices and equipment maintenance.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and they did not have to wait for support. Comments included, “Lots of staff, always someone to help me but I like to be independent, “I would say usually there are plenty of care people around” and “They always have time for me.” Relatives were equally positive about staffing levels.

Staff told us that there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff confirmed they found each other to be supportive and commented that they worked well together. Comments included, “Staffing levels are very good. We have a lot of international staff who have settled in very well” and “We have enough staffing. The levels are the same weekends and we have defined teams.”

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Where people required support, we saw staff were quickly available and anticipated people's needs. We saw calls bells were responded to quickly. Staff looked relaxed and not rushed.

Records of staff rotas showed planned staffing levels were always met. The registered manager told us they were fully recruited and only used agency staff to cover short notice absences. The provider used an effective dependency tool which took into account different variables.

People were positive of the environmental improvements. We saw people could move freely in the home. They told us staff were always cleaning and the home always smelt fresh.

Staff told us they received training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and often had their practice checked. The provider had a policy which staff followed. Staff practices in IPC were often checked to reduce chances of complacency.

The environment was clean and free from malodours. We saw staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and were using it correctly. Staff told us infection control was everyone’s business and as such they challenged each other’s practices.

We were assured that the provider had effective systems and processes in place to prevent and control infections. They ensured infection outbreaks were effectively prevented or managed. The provider had an up to date infection control policy which staff followed. Infection prevention and control was quality assured through the provider's effective processes.

People told us they received their medicines as prescribed. They said, “With my tablets they always explain what they are for. Since I’ve been here, they’ve cut down on my tablets” and “They [Staff] are very good at making sure I take my pills and yes, I do know what they are for.”

Staff met good practice standards described in relevant national guidance, including in relation to non-prescribed medicines. Staff had been trained in administering medicines and had their competencies to administer medicines regularly checked.

The provider had a medicine policy in place which guided staff on how to administer and manage medicines safely. Records showed people’s medicines were often reviewed. There were processes in place to ensure compliancy.